You say Police State, I say potato. Either way let's discuss surveillance and government overreach.

Kannon wrote:

However, the magazines are... very, very less complicated. It's basically a box with a spring. I may be good, but I can't scratch-build a SAW. I can, however, make a 20-round magazine with a basic shop. It took me a few tries to get it working reliably, but it's completely doable....Incidentally, I hate the term "military hardware". It's way too broad. I don't think any sane person thinks we should all have one of these monsters. I'd consider stuff like that, the SAW you mentioned, and the massive 20mm vulcan cannons they have on gunships to be "military hardware", not stuff like an AR-15.

Most people don't have the skills to build a decent, reliable magazine. The point is not to prevent ALL magazines from being made. Rather it is to reduce the number available or increase the difficulty of securing one.

The M-16 was developed for the U.S. military to meet military specifications. Different users have different needs when it comes to design, so if it had been designed for the hunting or a target shooting markets I'd call it something different. It's just a bit of shorthand in place of saying "semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine and modifications designed to allow quicker and more accurate shooting of groups of other armed people."

Funkenpants wrote:
Kannon wrote:

And the effectiveness of making magazines harder to procure is... debatable. It'd effect law-abiding citizens much, much more.

What's the negative effect? It doesn't change shooting for sport in any major way. It would make the magazines harder for guys like Holmes to find because they would need to make their own or find someone willing to make them for him. It would not prevent all mass shootings, but the worst that happens if we tried a ban for 10 years or so is that for 10 years people couldn't shoot off big clips of ammo at the local range. Doesn't seem like a very expensive experiment, socially speaking.

Politically, it'd give the NRA more ammo for "THEY'RE TAKING OUR X FOR NO REASON", make it even less likely to make meaningful reform in the future, there'd be a huge number of grandfathered magazines....

In an ideal world, I'd be all for it. With the NRA, our insane, ineffective, and stupid congress, and the Tea Party, it's not that simple. By way of example, look at the Assault Weapon Ban, or, closer to home, most tabled internet regulation. Congress is not competent, at this point in time. A lot of us are trying to be active and change it... but with Citizens United, it's a bit difficult).

I think our opinions are closer than you'd think, I think I'm just way, way more cynical about practical regulation. Outside of 30-round bench tests for a AR-15 or similar, I've not seen the need for more than a 10-round magazine. But just because I don't think it's needed doesn't mean someone else wouldn't have a good reason. (Though, I did have a lot of fun going through a SWAT training house. But that's still police toys, not civilian stuff.)

Also, +1 to what Edwin said.

SallyNasty wrote:

I love how people say "if crazies want the guns, they will find them!" I tend to call BS on this one. Where do you even begin to find them? You don't just walk down to a corner downtown and start asking shady characters where you can get an AK47. I think that is kind of a ridiculous stance. The fact that so many of the atrocious acts of murder and mayhem we see these days are perpetrated with legally purchased firearms sort of refutes that, doesn't it?

Need to outfit a revolution or mercenaries? How soon do you want it? Need something more affordable? It's all about who you know. Skip forward to Act One. When I grow up. Paragraph starts with "The more I obsessed on it". Looking to outfit your F-16? I got one an engine and sidewinders for you.

Those who got things from less-than-legal sources, that I knew about, were usually through crooked cops or air force reservists looking to make some money. Whether its stuff in evidence lock up to be sold, or a few spare parts of aircraft or armory. It's not that hard to get your hands on stuff that is usually untraceable. Just depends on who you know and how much money you have.

Funkenpants wrote:
Kannon wrote:

And the effectiveness of making magazines harder to procure is... debatable. It'd effect law-abiding citizens much, much more.

What's the negative effect? It doesn't change shooting for sport in any major way. It would make the magazines harder for guys like Holmes to find because they would need to make their own or find someone willing to make them for him. It would not prevent all mass shootings, but the worst that happens if we tried a ban for 10 years or so is that for 10 years people couldn't shoot off big clips of ammo at the local range. Doesn't seem like a very expensive experiment, socially speaking.

We did this already didn't we with the Assault Weapon Ban that Kannon mentioned? Maybe there are some numbers out there showing weather or not it made a difference.

Well, the Assault Weapons Ban was also a really sh*t piece of legislature. It did... very, very little. Provided a good bill, and sane implementation, it's worth considering. (I am skeptical of either of those.)

But, I'm having a hard time coming up with the numbers. My google-fu is horrible, and I'm trying to avoid both pro and anti gun bias. (It's why the graph I linked came with a disclaimer. I don't trust the website, but the numbers line up with what I was able to pull from the www.ncjrs.gov

How many violent crimes are really committed with rifles? The urban areas I grew up in favored pistols or sawn-off shotguns, which are at least 3 different kinds of illegal. (Felon with firearm, unregistered SBR, in an area where SBR aren't allowed at all)

What's the breakdown of violent crimes committed with and without guns? (This is the migrane and not wanting to stare at numbers and wrangle a spreadsheet talking. I'll probably do that in a couple of days, since I'm curious now)

In short, how effective would it be in stopping crime? Since our most recent murder peak coincides with the "War on Drugs", wouldn't winding that down be a better place to start?

Edit: Becuase I don't know if it's getting lost in the noise, I really appreciate this staying civil. It's a charged subject on both sides. GWJ is the only place on the internet where you can have a civil, legitimate discussion about gun control.

Kannon wrote:

I think our opinions are closer than you'd think, I think I'm just way, way more cynical about practical regulation.

As far as U.S. regulations go, I agree because of the NRA's lobbying power. If you want to evaluate the effectiveness of regulations overall, you'd have to pick ones that are national in scope and not subject to a ton of loopholes and grandfather clauses inserted to make the regulations less effective.

I don't think you can eliminate all gun crime or murders (or accidents or suicides) by eliminating private gun ownership. You could possibly reduce the rates of occurrence through various measures that would still allow people to own and shoot guns, provided you had a very large majority of people nationally who agreed on what kind of regulations we should have. We don't have that, obviously.

Funkenpants wrote:
Kannon wrote:

I think our opinions are closer than you'd think, I think I'm just way, way more cynical about practical regulation.

As far as U.S. regulations go, I agree because of the NRA's lobbying power. If you want to evaluate the effectiveness of regulations overall, you'd have to pick ones that are national in scope and not subject to a ton of loopholes and grandfather clauses inserted to make the regulations less effective.

I don't think you can eliminate all gun crime or murders (or accidents or suicides) by eliminating private gun ownership. You could possibly reduce the rates of occurrence through various measures that would still allow people to own and shoot guns, provided you had a very large majority of people nationally who agreed on what kind of regulations we should have. We don't have that, obviously.

As much as I love blaming the NRA (Seriously, I've had extensive experience in dealing with them personally. As an organization, it's right below Oracle in my opinion of them.), they're (over)reacting to the pressure that any civilian gun ownership needs to be banned.

Because the NRA is full of idiots. And some well meaning people who, I've noticed, tend to leave quickly. Can we get both groups occupied for a few weeks while we enact sensible legislation? Telling one group that "Obama is stealing guns from grandmothers", and the other that the NRA is handing out guns like lollipops to toddlers should do the trick.

Out of curiosity, what's your ideal gun legislation look like? (This goes for everyone. I'm curious.)

Mine looks something like this:
Assault Weapons Ban completely burned out, and we will never speak of it again.
Basically, semi-automatic firearms are broadly legal, with a few restrictions. Better wording of the SBR legislation, to more precisely target stuff like sawn-off shotguns (And not stuff like the pistols with stocks that I've seen used frequently for target shooting).
Anything over 31 rounds, is classified as a "high capacity" magazine, is illegal to buy or sell without ATF approval for corner cases, but generally carries a hefty fine. (But not a felony, because that falls into a whole other mess). I am not entirely sure how I'd want to handle grandfathering, for this.

Suppressors are broadly legal with a $(Small number) tax-stamp. Something on the order of 10-20$. They're a courtesy and safety item.

Reworking state laws to fit into an overarching federal framework.

Concealed Carry would be maintained, but requires more than just getting a permit. Permit, safety and training courses of what is appropriate use of lethal force, and the training so that if something _DID_ come up, someone who is carrying a concealed weapon has the training to actually do something about it. (I'm not talking about crappy "driver's course" sort of thing. I'm talking about legitimate training to make the right decisions under stress, and when and when not to use lethal force.)

Stand-your-ground laws would be unf*cked and clarified as best I could. The main provision would only apply to people breaking into your house with you (Or family) inside. Shooting someone to save your TV is not covered, for instance. Shooting a home invader? I'm pretty sure that's one of the reasons people have self-defense firearms.

Broadly speaking, make it legal to defend yourself and others, while preventing something like the Zimmerman incident from ever happening again. (Getting out of the car to confront someone posing no threat to anyone? Sorry, you lost the coverage of the law. Good luck with that.)

(I'd support broader civilian available of less-lethal alternatives for self defense as a rider to this bill. Lethal force is the _last_ resort, not the first.)

Also have a (voluntary at first, until the benefits become more clear) registry of firearms and owners. This has the benefit of protecting firearm owners should the worst happen, and providing solid proof of ownership if the gun gets stolen.

Make it more clearly legal to manufacture personal firearms, and easier and less-hoops to register as a gunsmith. (Again, this is predominantly local), and incentives to serial-number and register personal firearms.

(We register cars, I see no reason not to have to register firearms, which are just as dangerous and useful. But it needs to be framed entirely _positively_, or else people will freak out. You know, tax incentives, that sort of thing. Once people know it's not gonna lead to problems, you make it mandatory).

I also like the idea of being a licensed firearm operator/owner, that again, comes with nice benefits, requires you to actually know what the hell you're doing, so on.

I'd have to revise those a little, I'm sure, but those are the high-points.

Funkenpants wrote:
93_confirmed wrote:

The government is reducing the armament capability of the entire citizenry and it further infringes on the right to bear arms. If a person wants to commit mass murder they'll find a way to do it regardless of weapon capacity.

This argument would also apply to fully automatic rifles- a class of weapons that are already heavily restricted for use by the general public. It would also apply to other weapons carried by government infantry, including:

Light machine guns
Hand grenades
Claymore mines
Light anti-armor missiles
40mm grenade launchers
60mm mortars
flame throwers

I could own all these weapons without misusing them, but they are all prohibited or heavily restricted because 1) there really isn't any use for them except for killing people, and 2) the risks to other people involved with owning them are rather high.

Just in the interest of fun.
You can legally own flamethrowers. Yes really. For reals. I think I need to make one for my ant issue... Yes. Ants. [size=8](Insert evil laugh.)[/size]

I'm surprised. They don't seem common, but maybe that's because they are so expensive. Or just impractical for criminal use.

As I noted a page back, the evidence 93_Confirmed cites supporting the idea of an American police state really seems to be mostly "business as usual", but with an increase in the reach due to technology. I suspect we should be having a discussion as a nation about how that technology should be applied. But in most of his categories, things have actually *improved* since the 1930's.

Any comments?

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Kannon wrote:

Incidentally, I hate the term "military hardware". It's way too broad. I don't think any sane person thinks we should all have one of these monsters. I'd consider stuff like that, the SAW you mentioned, and the massive 20mm vulcan cannons they have on gunships to be "military hardware", not stuff like an AR-15.

Well, not for nothing, but it sure as sh*t isn't a hunting rifle.

You're right, lets ban everything that doesn't have a practical legal purpose besides entertainment. No more video games for you!

LeapingGnome wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Kannon wrote:

Incidentally, I hate the term "military hardware". It's way too broad. I don't think any sane person thinks we should all have one of these monsters. I'd consider stuff like that, the SAW you mentioned, and the massive 20mm vulcan cannons they have on gunships to be "military hardware", not stuff like an AR-15.

Well, not for nothing, but it sure as sh*t isn't a hunting rifle.

You're right, lets ban everything that doesn't have a practical legal purpose besides entertainment. No more video games for you!

What's the point of this? You and I both know these aren't equivalent.

SixteenBlue wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Kannon wrote:

Incidentally, I hate the term "military hardware". It's way too broad. I don't think any sane person thinks we should all have one of these monsters. I'd consider stuff like that, the SAW you mentioned, and the massive 20mm vulcan cannons they have on gunships to be "military hardware", not stuff like an AR-15.

Well, not for nothing, but it sure as sh*t isn't a hunting rifle.

You're right, lets ban everything that doesn't have a practical legal purpose besides entertainment. No more video games for you!

What's the point of this? You and I both know these aren't equivalent.

People keep throwing up the straw man of "you don't need X weapon for hunting" like the only reason anyone can justify having a weapon is hunting. Many many people in this country have and shoot guns for entertainment. I would guess there are more people that have guns for a day at the range than go hunting. So in the idea of they exist for entertainment, just like many other things like video games, they are equivalent and the statement that things should be banned because you don't *need* them is absurd to me.

LeapingGnome wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Kannon wrote:

Incidentally, I hate the term "military hardware". It's way too broad. I don't think any sane person thinks we should all have one of these monsters. I'd consider stuff like that, the SAW you mentioned, and the massive 20mm vulcan cannons they have on gunships to be "military hardware", not stuff like an AR-15.

Well, not for nothing, but it sure as sh*t isn't a hunting rifle.

You're right, lets ban everything that doesn't have a practical legal purpose besides entertainment. No more video games for you!

What's the point of this? You and I both know these aren't equivalent.

People keep throwing up the straw man of "you don't need X weapon for hunting" like the only reason anyone can justify having a weapon is hunting. Many many people in this country have and shoot guns for entertainment. I would guess there are more people that have guns for a day at the range than go hunting. So in the idea of they exist for entertainment, just like many other things like video games, they are equivalent and the statement that things should be banned because you don't *need* them is absurd to me.

Equating all forms of entertainment is absurd to me. No one's talking about the fact that you don't need X. They're talking about the fact that you don't need X and X has a primary purpose of killing. You can't leave these things out when you make analogies.

I honestly don't know where I stand on gun control but I do know that the response to a straw man shouldn't be another straw man.

Accurate statement, made in a slightly misleading way, I think. Not sure I want people bandying around a 40mm automatic grenade launcher for entertainment. Much like drag-racing on a public street is a terrible, terrible idea.

I wouldn't be opposed to both of them being used in a safe place for entertainment, but I don't trust the public-at-large enough to have them unregulated.

LeapingGnome wrote:

People keep throwing up the straw man of "you don't need X weapon for hunting" like the only reason anyone can justify having a weapon is hunting. Many many people in this country have and shoot guns for entertainment. I would guess there are more people that have guns for a day at the range than go hunting. So in the idea of they exist for entertainment, just like many other things like video games, they are equivalent and the statement that things should be banned because you don't *need* them is absurd to me.

Wow, did I say any of that? I'm pretty sure I was pushing back against the idea that an assault rifle isn't "military hardware" because it's not as big as a cruise missile. But by all means, lecture about the straw man some more--you might eventually hit on what that buzzword means.

Kannon, respectfully, I don't think it's out of line to classify combat weapons as military hardware.

Robear wrote:

As I noted a page back, the evidence 93_Confirmed cites supporting the idea of an American police state really seems to be mostly "business as usual", but with an increase in the reach due to technology. I suspect we should be having a discussion as a nation about how that technology should be applied. But in most of his categories, things have actually *improved* since the 1930's.

Any comments?

I think your point about the hagiography of the past cuts right to the heart of the matter.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Kannon, respectfully, I don't think it's out of line to classify combat weapons as military hardware.

It's not. But there's a huge spectrum of military hardware, people using civilian arms to great effect in military actions is not unheard of (A hunting rifle with a scope is basically just a low rent designated marksman's rifle, if you really look at it), and there's an enormous difference between a Colt 1911 pistol (Which was a military design), and the 40mm grenade launcher I mentioned earlier. Both are probably technically military hardware, but it's not useful to define them both as such.

Put it this way, a good marksman with a beat up old hunting rifle will do a good deal more damage than a psycho who has taken his only cues from a movie with an SOPMOD M4A1. Even though the latter looks much, much scarier.

LeapingGnome wrote:

People keep throwing up the straw man of "you don't need X weapon for hunting" like the only reason anyone can justify having a weapon is hunting. Many many people in this country have and shoot guns for entertainment. I would guess there are more people that have guns for a day at the range than go hunting. So in the idea of they exist for entertainment, just like many other things like video games, they are equivalent and the statement that things should be banned because you don't *need* them is absurd to me.

It doesn't matter if its hunting, target practice, sport shooting, or blasting sh*t in the middle of nowhere. It's still saying that the right of a tiny number of people to be entertained trumps the right of everyone else not to get shot.

You would be exceptionally hard pressed to show how "entertainment" shooters would even be affected by not being able to have an AR-15 or other similar weapon. It's not like it's the only firearm available to them. In fact, there's plenty of other firearms out there that are likely far better suited to hunting, target practice, or sport shooting.

The elephant in the room is that firearms like the AR-15 let grownups play Army. But it would be fatal to the pro-gun crowd to admit that they like firearms partially for the reason that they make them feel like bad asses because that has absolutely nothing to do with government tyranny, protection, hunting, or any of the arguments they normally trot out to justify their hobby every time there's a mass shooting.

No, what most of us, here, anyway, are saying is that banning that specific rifle would not deter a lunatic like that. And a law that doesn't establish it's stated aim is kind of pointless.

We've got a fairly recent history of laws that aim to serve a goal, and utterly fail at it, their only effect is to f*ck with people trying to follow the law. (Exhibit A: The TSA).

It's a hobby with practical uses, and the ability to be dangerous. You know the computer skills I practice could also be used to steal thousands of dollars, or with even less effort, completely wreck someone's life?

I practice lockpicking, because I'm _horrible_ at forgetting my keys. I've not gone 3 months since I moved out that I've not needed to break into something I own, because I'm an idiot. I can't carry lockpicks, because "oh no, they're dangerous", even though I can do it almost as well with a paperclip and a bobbypin.

I carry a leatherman, because the pliers, screwdriver, and *gasp* knife is handy to have. I end up using it pretty frequently, because I'm usually the one who is always prepared with this kind of crap. I could go on a stabbing spree in public and probably do quite a bit of damage.

And, to top it all, I drive a car. It'd be pretty easy to do truly horrible damage with 2 tons of metal moving at 60mph.

But, no, guns are *designed* to kill, they can't do anything else. It's the intent of the wielder, not the tool. Blaming the tool is a cop-out.

I went looking for FBI stats on murders committed by gun type.

It looks like handguns are a much bigger crime problem than rifles. In my state, we had no murders known to be committed with rifles in 2010, and only one with a shotgun. We have restrictions on some types of rifles and require permits for carrying a pistol, but I don't know how big an impact that has. Even in Texas, there were only 34 murders known to be committed with rifles compared to almost 600 committed with handguns.

OG_slinger wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:

People keep throwing up the straw man of "you don't need X weapon for hunting" like the only reason anyone can justify having a weapon is hunting. Many many people in this country have and shoot guns for entertainment. I would guess there are more people that have guns for a day at the range than go hunting. So in the idea of they exist for entertainment, just like many other things like video games, they are equivalent and the statement that things should be banned because you don't *need* them is absurd to me.

It doesn't matter if its hunting, target practice, sport shooting, or blasting sh*t in the middle of nowhere. It's still saying that the right of a tiny number of people to be entertained trumps the right of everyone else not to get shot.

You would be exceptionally hard pressed to show how "entertainment" shooters would even be affected by not being able to have an AR-15 or other similar weapon. It's not like it's the only firearm available to them. In fact, there's plenty of other firearms out there that are likely far better suited to hunting, target practice, or sport shooting.

The elephant in the room is that firearms like the AR-15 let grownups play Army. But it would be fatal to the pro-gun crowd to admit that they like firearms partially for the reason that they make them feel like bad asses because that has absolutely nothing to do with government tyranny, protection, hunting, or any of the arguments they normally trot out to justify their hobby every time there's a mass shooting.

I make no bones about it. I don't take my AK or AR hunting. They're impractical. I don't need a box magazine or C-Mag or a disintegrating link feed belt to shoot whitetail. I have a very nice bolt gun with a six round capacity that suffices.

Frankly, I don't care about opinions on my chosen hobby. I like it. I like shooting. I plan on getting my tax stamp for full auto one day. Which, done properly, will require a C-Mag or something equivalent. At this point, I'm free to do so.

It's unfortunate all those people died. Taking away my right to have fun in the way I choose won't save anyone in the future.

As to what any of this has to do with a police state? Beats me.

Kannon wrote:

No, what most of us, here, anyway, are saying is that banning that specific rifle would not deter a lunatic like that. And a law that doesn't establish it's stated aim is kind of pointless.

I don't hear that. I simply hear a circular argument that it's pointless to put any restrictions on owning firearms and, because it's pointless, no restrictions should be put on owning firearms.

It's exceptionally difficult to justify "entertainment" uses for firearms. Or it should be in a sane society. No ones' idea of fun should be so deadly to others.

Kannon wrote:

It's a hobby with practical uses, and the ability to be dangerous. You know the computer skills I practice could also be used to steal thousands of dollars, or with even less effort, completely wreck someone's life?

The problem with that argument is that computers aren't designed to be fraud machines while firearms are specifically designed to kill things. And even if you use a computer to wreck my life, I'm still alive, well, and all I have to do is file a sh*tload of paperwork (likely using my very own computer) to get my life back together again. However, if I'm shot I'm either going to die or have my life completely, and potentially, permanently changed. One of the victims lost his eyes and will have medical bills in the millions.

His life and the lives of so many other were completely changed all because of a "hobby" whose advocates basically shrug and say, "meh, what are you going to do?"

And I simply disagree that firearms are part of a hobby with any practical uses whose value exceeds the damage that they cause. The only practical use for them is hunting and that is a slowly dying sport. And you most definitely don't need an AR-15 and a 100-round magazine for that. In fact, you don't need anything more than a single shot rifle.

That means you're left trying to justify why you absolutely have to have one because you might occasionally get the urge to take it to the range.

But to make it that so that your whim to shoot things with any weapon you want is a reality, the entire system of firearms regulation has to be gamed so that what should be a difficult process to weed out the people who shouldn't have firearms is no more than speed bump.

And it's made a speed bump because the rationale for why no restrictions should be put in place to get firearms isn't because they're used for entertainment, it's because they are supposedly vital to defending citizens from the tyranny of the government.

Kannon wrote:

But, no, guns are *designed* to kill, they can't do anything else. It's the intent of the wielder, not the tool. Blaming the tool is a cop-out.

I'll accept that reasoning when everyone who wants to buy a firearm is required to get their heads' shrinked first. But I have a feeling that the NRA and gun owners wouldn't like that at all. And since doing reasonable things to make sure crazy people (and criminals) can't get guns is off the table, the only option is to go after the firearms they seem to like.

If you're going to fall back on the entertainment or hobby use of weapons then it is entirely reasonable to ask the question "do you *really need* that weapon/accessory for hunting, target practice, or whatever 'entertainment' use you want?" Not having an AR-15 doesn't mean a hunter isn't going to come home empty handed (not that there's many people left who rely on hunting to eat these days). And you certainly don't need one for target practice or sport shooting.

If a particular weapon truly isn't needed for its very limited practical hobby uses, then there's no need to make it available. The argument of "I want to have it for fun" just doesn't cut it when people are dying from it.

Reaper81 wrote:

Taking away my right to have fun in the way I choose won't save anyone in the future.

I must have missed that part of the Second Amendment...

The argument of "I want to have it for fun" just doesn't cut it when people are dying from it.

Along this path lay madness.

Reaper81 wrote:
The argument of "I want to have it for fun" just doesn't cut it when people are dying from it.

Along this path lay madness.

And the current path we're following makes sense?

OG_slinger wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:
The argument of "I want to have it for fun" just doesn't cut it when people are dying from it.

Along this path lay madness.

And the current path we're following makes sense?

More sense than that.

Besides I'd be okay with the psych workup if we got our mental health system in order first. It's not gonna do anyone any good now. But, the MHS needs to get unf*cked, stat _anyway_. It'd do more good in preventing stuff like this, anyway.

Incidentally how is: "We need a competent congress before we can get good gun laws, and bad laws are worse than no laws" a circular argument?

Seriously though, I'm not actually sure there's room for agreement here. You think guns are evil, regardless, and I don't. I don't honestly see a civil way out of it.

Maybe were attacking the problem from the wrong side. Give the people all the guns they can afford. Make them pay dearly for the ammo.

Bear wrote:

Maybe were attacking the problem from the wrong side. Give the people all the guns they can afford. Make them pay dearly for the ammo.

What was the movie where a copy and a bad guy are shooting at each other, run out of bullets and commence throwing their guns at each other? Is it Naked Gun?

Kannon wrote:

More sense than that.

Besides I'd be okay with the psych workup if we got our mental health system in order first. It's not gonna do anyone any good now. But, the MHS needs to get unf*cked, stat _anyway_. It'd do more good in preventing stuff like this, anyway.

Incidentally how is: "We need a competent congress before we can get good gun laws, and bad laws are worse than no laws" a circular argument?

Seriously though, I'm not actually sure there's room for agreement here. You think guns are evil, regardless, and I don't. I don't honestly see a civil way out of it.

So the rest of the world has to be perfect before you'll take a step towards addressing guns and gun violence? Now that's a cop out.

You don't need to fix the entire mental health system to prevent mass shooting like this. You just need to make sure people with mental issues can't buy firearms.

I've never said that guns are evil. I am simply incredibly frustrated with a system that allows firearms to flow like water in this country and people who wrap themselves in the American flag anytime that broken system is so much as questioned.

I was wondering if it would be possible to drag the gun control into another thread...